General Chat

Post unapproved
_________________________

admin: You can’t keep a sad troll down!

I will not approve posts from anyone hiding behind a keyboard and using multiple identities to insult me or anyone else unfortunate enough to have suffered debilitating results after refractive eye surgery.

A little research into his previously used IP addresses and this is 'Al Far(r)etta' - posting again from Worcestershire. (See 06 Dec 2015 23:39 & 05 Dec 2015 15:55 www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...ge-rle.html?start=10 )

The truth about the troll according to 'Al Faretta' aka 'Al Farretta' aka 'Albert' aka 'Ducky' - provided only after I challenged his numerous lies posted on OERML:


(See 08 Jan 2016 19:00
www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...le.html?limitstart=0 )

For the record 'Ducky', you cannot defend the indefensible by calling people ‘idiots’

On this occasion I have chosen not to post as 'admin' of this site, but as Sasha Rodoy, one of estimated tens of thousands of patients damaged by refractive eye surgery over the past 10-20 years.

Katherine wrote: Surely everyone knows there's a risk it may cause damage?! Like any surgery!

It should be considered that the vast majority of surgical operations are undertaken out of necessity, not desire, and therefore any risk is the lesser of two evils.

From my personal experience with the NHS:
• The patient meets the surgeon in person long before a scheduled operation (excluding emergencies)
• The surgeon alone recommends which operation is best for the patient, not a member of the nursing team or office staff - and certainly not a ’counsellor’ on commission!
• The surgeon verbally explains the purpose and proposed benefits of the surgery to the patient, and possible complications - ALL of them!
• On the day of the operation both surgeon and anaesthetist visit the patient pre-op to ensure they are fully informed, when ALL possible complications are explained and discussed BEFORE asking the patient to sign consent.

NB: I was scheduled for a minor operation a few months ago, but having had time to think about it I wasn’t sure the procedure would be worthwhile, so I arrived at the hospital with some concerns.

The surgeon came to see me and I asked the questions that had been bothering me. He answered honestly and agreed with me that the benefits were likely to be relatively small. I thanked him, cancelled surgery, and went home.

I was FULLY INFORMED.

This is the consent form that I signed - shortly before my lasek surgery - when I was incredibly scared and could barely write for shaking. I couldn’t see clearly and the girl at the desk placed her finger at each point to show me where to initial.

Not only did I sign for LASIK and LASEK, which supports the fact that I couldn’t see what I was signing, but you can see by my scrawled initials that this was done in a hurry.






I trust that the majority of people who follow OERML accept that I am an intelligent person, and on that premise will appreciate that I would not have consented for surgery if I believed for a nanosecond that I was likely to have ‘damage’ done to my eyes. In fact I now suffer most of the ‘somepeoplemayexperiencethefollowing’ [sic] listed problems, and some not listed!

I was also looking for an excuse not to undergo surgery, so had the (very real) risks been explained to me at any point, if I’d been told that there was even a slight possibility that I would lose my perfect near vision, be unable to drive safely at night, totally rely on three prescriptions instead of one, suffer severe photophobia and dry eyes for the rest of my life, have poorer vision than before surgery, and more, then you wouldn’t be reading this now.

Point 5: I was aged 57 and had perfect unaided near vision. I am (was) an avid reader and would never ever have traded that luxury simply to be able to see distance without glasses. My ‘new’ distance vision deteriorated after approx a year so I don’t even have that to compensate for the pain and ruined vision I will suffer for the rest of my life!

Point 13: 'Since it is impossible to state every complication that may arise, please be aware that those included on this form are a selection of examples only’

Fully informed - I think not! Btw, the very unpleasant Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD) that I’m told I’ll have for the rest of my life is not mentioned.

Contrarily I was assured that the risks were rare (in fact it says so on the Consent form) and the Consent form was ‘just for legal reasons to cover the clinic' - I kid you not!

Page 1, paragraph 4, states that, ‘You must rely solely on the advice given by the surgeon’.

I had intended to do exactly that, trusting Dr Hoe would explain all the risks to me, but he was running late, in a big hurry and made a cursory examination of my eyes, then asked if I wanted Lasik or Lasek! I really should have left then, because I had been advised by the optometrist that I was suitable for Lasek ONLY, and I knew nothing about Lasik!!

Page 1, para 3, ‘You should not be presented with any new information on the day of surgery.'

I won’t go into detail now, but the GMC are investigating my complaint v Dr Hoe and I will publish their decision when I have it. Suffice to say I was asked to make an UNINFORMED decision within seconds, and regrettably I did so.

Back in the waiting room I spoke to a damaged patient* (he was of course the first of thousands since that day) and I insisted on discussing this with Dr Hoe. I expressed my concern about this man’s post op problems but Dr Hoe dismissed me with a wave of his hand (literally), looked at his watch, sighed, and said my eyes were, ‘very nice for this treatment'!

On top of my natural trepidation, I saw warning signs every step of the way, but I always trusted that a doctor would do me no harm. Not any more, now I realise that in cases where money is the doctor’s primary incentive the patient’s welfare is secondary.

Even sitting in the little ante room waiting for the door to open into the theatre I will never forget how seriously I considered exiting out of the door I’d entered through. Sadly I have to admit that I also considered that if I did so I’d lose my £400 deposit (finance agreement for the balance)! I was still thinking about it when the door opened, and I try not to think about what I’d have done if they’d left me for just a few more minutes!

So Katherine, no - like me, everyone left with problems most definitely did not know that there was a risk of ‘damage’, only told that side effects and problems are ‘very rare’. If the truth were told then the high street industry would have shut up shop long ago!

* On 18 February 2011, a man was sitting in the corner of the Croydon clinic in abject misery. I thought he was just scared like me, but he told me that he was a black cab driver and in the unenviable position of deciding whether or not to go ahead with a THIRD monovision treatment after problems with the previous procedures!

If anyone knows who this man is I would very much like to hear from him.

The Consent form should give adequate details and no one shoulld sign it till ALL information is received. There are tons of info on the Internet available freely.
____________________________
admin: Google reviews on a new car or holiday you want to buy, but I do not accept that you should be expected to trawl the net for information about a serious operation!

Having said that, I did google lasek pre-op, and all I could find were positive reviews - now I know why of course!

And why OERML is here

Everyone knows that treatment can lead to complications, but these clinics mislead people into thinking that they are much rarer than they actually are. They also play down the severity of complications and tell the public that most will go away with time or retreatment, which is mostly untrue.

Surely everyone knows there's a risk it may cause damage?! Like any surgery!

This is my third claim, the second scheduled for hearing @ 2pm on 7 June in Willesden County Court.


When will Russell realise that we can't go on meeting like this

It makes being stuck in heavy traffic on a motorway almost enjoyable!



Contact me for details if you'd like to order one

By continuing to support the corruption within this industry, the RCOphth is dragging itself through the gutter and losing all credibility as a respected organisation.
Are they now only worrying about their own reputation and wellbeing, or is anyone actually concerned about what is going on in this industry? Both should be of great concern, but ending this terrible danger to the public should be their priority, and they don't seem to be doing anything about it that could actually help. They need to involve Sasha and talk to victims about their experiences, although they can have no doubt about the corruption they are dealing with.

Recent criticism from within OE's own ranks - I love that they follow OERML



www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Employee-Rev...press-RVW9640622.htm

Btw, hats off to ‘Glassdoor’, because unlike Trustpilot they allow true reviews!

Note the flurry of glowing reviews that follow the negatives - OE insiders have sent me details of how senior management have ‘forced’ them to leave positive reviews!

“No! Surely not?" I hear you say, but yup, it’s true! Hard to believe I know, OE management pressuring staff to tell lies.

And here's the nitty gritty truth that OE have denied - even though I have hard copy evidence!



"The targets the company sets its Optometrists are unrealistic, gimmicky and very difficult to meet. Each week the Optometrist with the most sales is given an expensive prize which serves to change the clinical focus from what is best for the patient to what costs the patient the most and what is most likely to drive up your sales figures for the week...

Forget the patient's needs, the cash in the till at the end of each day is all that matters."

And this abomination is what Prof Carrie MacEwen and her cohorts at the RCOphth are supporting!

www.nhs.uk/Services/opticians/ReviewsAnd...ltView.aspx?id=91980